THE GLOBE. THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 1882. THE PURCHASE BY INSTALMENT SYSTEM.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2692, 23 November 1882, Page 2

THE GLOBE. THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 1882. THE PURCHASE BY INSTALMENT SYSTEM.

In those days, when competition eu ; s everything very fine, and things are made as easy as possible for the purchaser, the purchase fay instalment system has thrown out its shoots with great vigor. The system is no doubt a great convenience, and, were it interfered with to any great extent, a considerable blank would bo felt. Young people, in particular, who are starting to beep house with only limited means, find it very handy to be able to procure sewing machines and pianos at once, without waiting until the funds necessary for a downright purchase have accumulated.

A now house, even with the most charming new wife, would hardly appear completely rounded off unless a sewing machine stood in one corner of the parlor and a piano in another. Even though the new wife may not be able to extract much more music out of the latter than out of the former, yet the husband fondly hopes that she will practice and become an accomplished musician in a few months, while, as to the sewing machine, if the noise of its working is somewhat irritating, yet the good it effects is beyond question. But the purchase by instalment system is not all “ cakes and ale,” either to the vendor or the purchaser. One aspect of the question was presented at the Resident Magistrate’s Court here the other day, when Mr. Hobbs sued Mr. Patterson, with the view of recovering the sum of £7 10s for the conversion to his own use of a certain sewing machine. The said machine had been soil to a Mrs. Barrett under the instalment system, the memorandum of agreement stipulating that the machine was not to be removed from Mrs. Barrett’s house at Lincoln before tho whole sum was paid without the written permission of Mr. Hobbs. But the agreement was broken, the machine was sent down to Christchurch and sold at public auction, and Mr. Hobbs finds that, unless Mr. Ollivier’s decision is reversed in a higher Court, his claim on the machine has vanished, and his only remedy will lie against the Barretts. This points to the fact that there are unpleasing features in an otherwise charming system. Tho vendor has evidently to use great cantion in his dealings with unknown persons. But some agents, in Australia at all events, have other difficulties to struggle against, at least if what, is given ns by the “ Sydney Evening News ” is thoroughly reliable. From that paper we learn that the other day at the Central Police Court a case of considerable importance to sewing machine agents was brought up. “ William Alderdice sned the Singers’ Manufacturing Company, of Darling Harbor, for balance of commission on sales effected by him. The company was represented by Mr Curtis. Mr Alderdice conducted his own case. The defendants pleaded the non-existence of any responsible person in connection with the firm in the colonies. The plaintiff wanted to know if that was the loophole the company wished to get out of. His Worship, in very strong terms, referred to the idea of the firm employing people, and then, when their wages were dne, advancing the theory that there was no responsible person to be sned.” The result of the above suit was that tho Court held that, as there was no responsible members of the “ Singer’s Manufaoturing Company ” in the colonies, and therefore no one to sue or to be sued in respect to the transactions of the Company, the plaintiff had no case, and must lose his wages. The plea of the defendants, it will be remarked, was not that Mr. Alderdice had acted without dne authority, but that their existed no responsible person in connection with the firm in the colonies. It may then be truly said that sewing machine agents in some parts of the colonies are at present having rather a rough time of it. They are liable to be hit both above and below water line.

But the case quoted by the “ Sydney Evening News” opens out a wide question, and is of great importance to the public at large. Without referring to any particular company, the general question as to the position of the public with respect to companies which have not a responsible head in the colonies may bo entertained. Quoting from a piofessionsl opinion on a case stated, ami which was suggested by the proceedings referred to above, a contemporary informs us that counsel advised as follows :

“ Any company which trades in the colonies without having a responsible head located therein lays itself open thereby to the following questions at the hands of those with whom it seeks to do business:—

“ 1. Aro not your guarantees useless, unless there be a responsible parson whom we can compel to carry out the promises therein ?

“2. Should any money paid your travellers never roach your hands through default of said travellers, how can we enforce proper acknowledgment and credit for the payment of same. In a law Court you might plead “no responsible head.

“3. How can we tell that the goods sold by men claiming to be yonr travellers are really yonr manufacture, and not fraudulently represented as such, unless there be eomo responsible head to whom wo can appeal for proper assurances; and how can we know that we are paying a fair market price for such goods, and that they may not bo sold at a much lower price to-morrow ?

“ 4. Should you bo trading upon time payment system, to whom can anyone look for a clear receipt, or title to the article, upon which they have completed all the payments agreed; how can anyone guard against the possibility of further payments being enforced, or tbo article being removed, there being no responsible head to appeal to against such injustice.

• “5. Should we bain the position of landlords of premises occupied by you, or of travellers, or salesmen, for yon, or of tradesmen doing work for yon, how do wo know that yon will not sot up snch a defence against payment of our fair rents, wages, &c,, as that recently made in a Sydney law court by the Singer Manufacturing Company Of course even if this opinion is reliable, there is another side to the question, namely, the vendor’s side. A purchaser after having got hold of a machine might, refuse to recognise the agent as a responsible person. Looked at, therefore, from either point of view the state of things suggested by the Sydney case is not a desirable one, arid the moral to he drawn is that foreign firms seeking orders should at all times “ publish the nsmo of some person, who, in their name, can be held to account or have power to enforce contracts virtually entered into."